In Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 520 Pa. 130, 552 A.2d 1382 (1989), an insurance policy covered six vehicles owned and operated by a municipal unincorporated volunteer fire department. The policy provided for uninsured motorist coverage as required by the MVFRL. A fireman was injured in an accident in the course of his volunteer duties for the department and was unable to return to his job as an independent truck driver. He received worker's compensation benefits under the municipality's policy. He then filed a claim with the department's auto insurer seeking uninsured motorist benefits. The insurer objected and the matter went to arbitration under the Uniform Arbitration Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 7301-7362. The question before the arbitrator was whether the fireman would be able to stack the $ 30,000 per vehicle uninsured insurance. A majority of the arbitrators approved that request, thus granting the maximum amount payable under the insurance policy of $ 180,000. One of the issues the Supreme Court considered was whether the uninsured motorist coverage "should be reduced or 'set-off' by the amount of worker's compensation benefits" the fireman received in accordance with the terms of the policy. The Supreme Court, in noting the decisions of other jurisdictions, voided the exclusionary provision, stating as follows: The rationale of these courts is varied but certain common themes emerge: first, uninsured motorist coverage is paid for by a separate premium, and to give the uninsured motorist carrier a set-off based on the fortuitous existence of a collateral source would result in a windfall to the carrier; second, uninsured motorist coverage is mandated by statute and any variations from that statutory mandate should come from the legislature; third, workmen's compensation only covers a fraction of what tort damages would cover (e.g. workmen's compensation does not provide 100% of wage loss coverage, nor pain and suffering, nor other consequential damages) and a dollar-for-dollar set-off does not recognize this reality; and fourth, there is no public policy against an individual purchasing additional uninsured motorist coverage to protect himself and his family against the shortfall, which could result from a dependency on workmen's compensation benefits. Id., 520 Pa. at 142-3, 552 A.2d at 1388. However, the Court further noted that there was a new, post-injury, statutory basis that supported its conclusion that the exclusionary provision was invalid: At that time the then-recently adopted Section 1735 of the MVFRL provided that "the coverages required by this Act shall not be made subject to an exclusion or reduction in amount because of any worker's compensation benefits payable as a result of the same injury. 75 Pa.C.S. 1735." 520 Pa. at 143, 552 A.2d at 1388.